Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
indesign-nutria-mcp

indesign-nutria-mcp

by nutriandrea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

dataMerge_selectDataSource

Select a CSV, TSV, or XML file as the data source for an InDesign data merge, optionally targeting a specific open document by name or index.

Instructions

Select a data source (CSV/TSV/XML) file for data merge

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "dataMerge_selectDataSource"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYes
document_idNoWhich open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. 'Select' implies a state-setting mutation, but the description doesn't say whether it replaces an existing data source, whether it requires an open document, or what happens to any previously linked source.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though very terse for a tool that mutates document state.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits key context: replacement semantics for existing data sources, prerequisite document state, and typical workflow position. It is under-specified rather than merely concise.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50%: document_id is documented in the schema, while filePath relies on its name. The description adds the accepted file formats, which is genuine value for filePath, but contributes nothing for the document-selection parameter, which the schema already covers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (select) plus the resource (a data-source file) and enumerates supported formats (CSV/TSV/XML). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dataMerge_removeDataSource and dataMerge_mergeRecords, though it never names them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a document must be open), and no mention of the sibling alternatives in the dataMerge family. The user is left to infer that this is the setup step before mergeRecords.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools